Complainant, Peter Wong, slipped and fell on ice at the Dwight D. Eisenhower
Center in Abilene, Kansas, on December 30, 1992. In January 1993, the complainant
retained the respondent to represent him in a negligence action. On December 21,
1993, the respondent sent a letter to the legal staff of the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). The respondent attached a Standard Form 95 Claim
for Damage, Injury or Death to his letter. The claim was for the sum of $15,000. On
July 6, 1994, the NARA's legal staff informed the respondent that the NARA denied
responsibility for the claim. Contained in NARA's letter to the respondent was a notice
that suit had to be filed in the appropriate United States District Court within 6 months of
the date the NARA's letter was received by the respondent.

On December 19, 1994, the respondent filed a petition for damages on behalf of
the complainant in Reno County District Court rather than the United States District
Court for the District of Kansas. On January 18, 1995, the Assistant United States
Attorney representing the NARA filed an entry of appearance. On February 2, 1995,
the NARA filed an answer and a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Both the
answer and motion to dismiss sought a dismissal of the lawsuit on the ground that the
Federal Tort Claims Act required the suit to be filed in United States District Court. On
February 17, 1995, an order of dismissal was filed in Reno County District Court. The
respondent approved the dismissal. At the time of the dismissal of the complainant's
action in state court, the federal statute of limitations had expired.

The respondent failed to inform the complainant of the dismissal and of his
failure to file the action in federal court. Wong filed a complaint with the Disciplinary
Administrator's office on January 26, 1996. At that time, the complainant was not
aware that his claim in federal court was time barred. Prior to filing his complaint, the
complainant had attempted to contact the respondent for 4 months to inquire about his
case. The respondent did not answer the complainant's calls and failed to inform the
complainant as to the status of the case. The respondent was notified of the complaint.

In February 1996, the respondent began negotiating a settlement of Wong's
malpractice claim against him. On July 11, 1996, the complainant executed a "Release
In Full of All Claims" against the respondent for $6,000, payable at $200 per month.
The release prepared by the respondent also included a release of the respondent from
any disciplinary claims. On April 30, 1996, the complainant informed the investigator of
the disciplinary complaint that he wished to dismiss the complaint upon signing the
release and receiving payment of $6,000.

The hearing panel found by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent's
actions and behavior violated MRPC 1.1, MRPC 1.2 (1996 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 261)
(scope of representation), MRPC 1.3, and MRPC 3.2. The panel determined that the
respondent had not violated MRPC 8.4(d) or 8.4(g) or Supreme Court Rule 207. The
Disciplinary Administrator emphasized to the panel that the respondent exhibited no
evidence of any selfish or dishonest motive. Further, the respondent consulted with the
assigned investigator on the conditions of the release before, during, and after it was
finalized in his attempt to cooperate with the investigation and to resolve any potential
financial loss to the complainant due to the respondent's lack of diligence.

Case No. A6634

On December 28, 1995, a complaint was sent to the Disciplinary Administrator's
office by the Honorable William F. Lyle, Reno County District Court Judge alleging that
the respondent had disappeared from his law office in the early part of November 1995
without notice to his clients. The judge expressed concern that the respondent had
made no plans to provide adequate representation and counsel to his clients. In
December 1995, the respondent returned to his practice, contacted Judge Lyle, and
indicated to the judge that he wished to resume his practice of law. The respondent
explained his absence was caused by an addiction to gambling and stated he had
abandoned his law practice to make a trip to Las Vegas, Nevada.

Judge Lyle stated in his complaint that other attorneys and the respondent's
clients had attempted to contact the respondent during his absence on many
occasions. Messages from attorneys and clients went unanswered for several weeks.
Judge Lyle listed five instances where the respondent had not complied with his
responsibilities to his clients and to the Reno County District Court. The panel found
that two instances were proved by clear and convincing evidence:

In one instance, the respondent represented Curtis Harper, who had been
charged with possession of cocaine with intent to sell. A preliminary examination
originally set on November 9, 1995, was continued to December 12, 1995, to allow the
respondent to attend a CLE session. Neither the respondent nor Mr. Harper appeared
at the December 12, 1995, scheduled preliminary examination. A warrant was issued
for Harper's arrest. The respondent explained to the panel that upon his return, he
appeared with Harper, had the warrant withdrawn, and had a new court date set.

In the next instance, the respondent was retained by Michael Capps, who was
charged with speeding. Mr. Capps appeared for trial and informed the court that he
had retained and paid the respondent to represent him but could not locate the
respondent. Mr. Capps proceeded to trial pro se. The respondent stated to the panel
that when several witnesses refused to testify, Capps lost his case. The respondent
refunded Mr. Capps' retainer.

The hearing panel found the respondent's actions and behavior in these matters
amounted to a violation of MRPC 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4. In further findings, the panel
considered in part the following findings of aggravation:

"a. Prior disciplinary offenses. Respondent has two prior disciplinary offenses in the
form of
informal admonitions.

. . . .

"c. A pattern of misconduct. In this consolidated matter, a number of clients were
abandoned by
the respondent for significant periods of time with no measures taken to maintain communication
with
clients or providing substitute legal representation during respondent's absences. Further, in the
fall of
1996, the respondent yielded to his addiction to gamble by attempting to travel to Las Vegas,
Nevada for
that purpose. A car accident prevented him from completing the trip.

"d. Multiple offenses. In this consolidated matter, a number of clients were abandoned
by the
respondent for significant periods of time with no measures taken to maintain communication
with clients
or providing substitute legal representation during respondent's absences.

. . . .

"i. Substantial experience in the practice of law. Respondent has been a practicing
attorney
since 1988."

The panel considered the following facts of mitigation:

"a. Absence of a prior disciplinary record. Respondent has a prior disciplinary record of
two
informal admonitions.

"b. Absence of a dishonest or selfish motive. Respondent's conduct demonstrated no
dishonest
or selfish motive.

"c. Personal or emotional problems if such misfortunes have contributed to the violations
of the
Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent admits that he has a gambling addiction and
that he
is willing to continue treatment for his problem.

"d. Timely good faith efforts to make restitution or to rectify consequences of
misconduct. In
Case No. A6519, respondent entered into a settlement agreement with the complainant to the
complainant's satisfaction. In Case No. A6634 the respondent refunded his retainer to his client
to his
client's satisfaction.

"e. The present and past attitude of the attorney as shown by his cooperation during the
hearing
and his full and free acknowledgment of the transgressions. Respondent has been cooperative
during the
course of these proceedings and has fully acknowledged the wrongful nature of his conduct.

. . . .

"g. Previous good character and reputation in the community including any letters from
clients,
friends and lawyers in support of the character and general reputation of the attorney.
Respondent's
current supervisor at the public defender's office spoke in support of the respondent. She stated
to the
panel that she is pleased with how the respondent is handling his caseload.

. . . .

"i. Mental disability or chemical dependency including alcoholism or drug abuse when
(1) There
is medical evidence that the respondent is affected by a chemical dependency or mental
disability; (2)
The chemical dependence or mental disability caused the misconduct; (3) The respondent's
recovery
from the chemical dependency or mental disability is demonstrated by a meaningful and
sustained period
of successful rehabilitation, and; (4) The recovery arrested the misconduct and recurrence of that
misconduct is unlikely. Respondent's gambling addiction may be viewed as a mental disability
to the
extent that it appears to be a compulsive mental disorder. The record lacks any evidence as to the
generally anticipated success rate of rehabilitation efforts. Respondent stated that he has stopped
gambling. He has met with a counselor and is willing to continue in therapy.

. . . .

"l. Remorse. Respondent exhibited sincere remorse for his actions.

"m. Remoteness of prior offenses. The complaints giving rise to the two prior informal
admonitions were filed in 1992 and 1994.

"n. Any statement by the complainant expressing satisfaction with restitution and
requesting no
discipline. In Case No. A6519 the complainant signed a letter requesting his complaint be
dismissed
pursuant to his settlement agreement with the respondent. As this panel does not condone such
agreements the panel does not construe the complainant's letter to be a mitigating factor."

Based upon these findings and considerations, the panel found that the
respondent committed the alleged violations of the Kansas Model Rules of Professional
Conduct. The panel, following the Disciplinary Administrator's recommendation found
that the respondent should be placed on supervised probation for a period of 2 years
subject to the following conditions:

"1. Respondent must strictly comply with the terms of his settlement agreement with the
complainant in Case No. A6519 in that the agreed-upon amount of $200 per month be paid until
the full
settlement amount of $6,000 is satisfied in full.

"2. In the event that the respondent should leave his position with the public defender's
office he
must immediately notify the Disciplinary Administrator's Office. The Disciplinary
Administrator's Office
shall be entitled to bring any such action as is necessary before the Supreme Court of the State of
Kansas
so as to assure that respondent's practice is adequately supervised.

"3. Respondent shall cause his supervisor in the public defender's office, or his/her
successors,
to report to the Disciplinary Administrator's Office every fourth months on his progress and
conduct, or, if
problems arise, immediately.

"4. Respondent must meet with a qualified psychiatrist or psychologist, subject to the
approval of
the Disciplinary Administrator's Office, and receive a formal evaluation. A copy of the
evaluation shall be
forwarded to the Disciplinary Administrator's Office. The respondent shall comply with the
evaluation's
recommendation and he shall keep the Disciplinary Administrator's Office apprised of his
compliance with
the recommendations.

"5. Respondent must meet with a member of the impaired lawyers' assistance panel, as
recommended or approved by the Disciplinary Administrator's Office, on a periodic basis.

"6. The respondent shall not gamble or participate in any other games of chance."

NEW INFORMATION

On March 26, 1997, the Disciplinary Administrator, pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule 212(b) (1996 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 217), recommended that the respondent be
disbarred from the practice of law because of his failure to comply with two crucial
conditions set by the panel in its final hearing report. In support of these
recommendations, the Disciplinary Administrator stated:

"The panel recommended that the respondent must strictly comply with the terms of a
settlement
agreement that he entered into with the complainant in Case No. A6519. The complainant in
Case A6519
was Peter Wong. The respondent had agreed to represent Mr. Wong in a slip and fall incident
which
occurred at the Eisenhower Museum in Abilene, Kansas. The respondent allowed the matter to
be
dismissed at a time when the statute of limitations had expired. Subsequently, the respondent
entered
into agreement with Mr. Wong in which he agreed to pay Mr. Wong $6,000 to be paid in
payments of $200
a month beginning September 15, 1996. (Disciplinary Administrator's Exhibit H in Case No.
A6519).
Subsequent to the disciplinary hearing on December 10, 1996, the respondent has failed to make
the
$200 payments to Mr. Wong in January and February. The January payment of $200 to Mr.
Wong by the
respondent was made by a check dated January 15, 1997. That check was returned for
insufficient funds.
A copy of a letter to the Disciplinary Administrator's Office from Mr. Wong dated February 7,
1997,
informing the Disciplinary Administrator's Office of the insufficient funds check is attached
hereto and
marked Exhibit A. A copy of the insufficient funds check is attached to Mr. Wong's February 7,
1997
letter. Another letter from Mr. Wong dated February 19, 1997, is attached hereto and marked
Exhibit B.
In that letter Mr. Wong informed the Disciplinary Administrator's Office that the February
payment from Mr.
Neal had not been received. On February 5, 1997, Stan Hazlett of the Disciplinary
Administrator's Office
wrote the respondent a letter in which the respondent was advised of the correspondence received
from
Peter Wong. In addition, the respondent was advised that Mr. Hazlett would inform the Supreme
Court of
any failure of the respondent to comply with his settlement agreement with Mr. Wong. The
respondent
has taken no action to become current on his obligation to Mr. Wong and the insufficient funds
check
remains outstanding. The Disciplinary Administrator's Office has received no response to the
February 5,
1997, letter written to the respondent. That letter is attached hereto and marked Exhibit C. The
respondent assured the panel members at his hearing that he would take care of his obligation to
Mr.
Wong. [Citation omitted.]

". . .The Disciplinary Administrator's Office made its recommendation, in part, based on
the fact
that the respondent, at the time of the disciplinary hearing, was employed as an attorney at the
Liberal,
Kansas, Public Defender's Office. The panel made it a condition of its recommendation that the
respondent should notify the Disciplinary Administrator's Office if he should leave the Public
Defender's
Office. [Citation omitted.] On March 15, 1997, Stan Hazlett received a letter from Natalie G.
Haag who is
the Executive Director of the Board of Indigent Defense Services. In that letter, Ms. Haag
informed Mr.
Hazlett that Mr. Neal had resigned from the Liberal, Kansas, Public Defender's Office on March
8, 1997.
A copy of that letter is attached hereto and marked Exhibit D. The letter contains the following
information:
Ms. Haag was able to determine that Mr. Neal left the Public Defender's Office on February 28,
1997. On
March 3, 1997, Mr. Neal advised a secretary in the Liberal office that he was in Wichita because
his father
had suffered a heart attack. Ms. Haag learned that the representation made by Mr. Neal about his
father's
condition was false. Mr. Neal failed to return to the office when he said he would do so and
consequently
missed some court appearances. According to Ms. Haag, the respondent was to second chair two
felony
trials and failed to do so. Additionally, Mr. Neal missed an arraignment hearing which resulted
in a bond
forfeiture. The respondent did not notify the Disciplinary Administrator's Office of his
resignation from the
Liberal, Kansas, Public Defender's Office. Ms. Haag stated in her letter to the Disciplinary
Administrator's
Office that she had contacted the respondent's former wife who indicated to Ms. Haag that she
feared Mr.
Neal had headed back to Las Vegas, Nevada."

We hold that the respondent should be disbarred from the practice of law in
Kansas.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that William E. Neal, Jr., be and he is hereby
disbarred from the practice of law in Kansas, and his license and privilege to practice
law are hereby revoked.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Appellate Courts strike the
name of William E. Neal, Jr., from the roll of attorneys licensed to practice law in
Kansas.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order shall be published in the Kansas
Reports, that the costs herein shall be assessed to the respondent, and that the
respondent forthwith shall comply with Supreme Court Rule 218 (1996 Kan. Ct. R.
Annot. 226).